Tough break here for the Rams and for Sam Bradford, who will miss the entire 2014 season after another tear in his left ACL in Saturday night's preseason game against Cleveland. It's the same ACL he tore in the middle of last year. Veteran Shaun Hill now becomes the Rams' starting quarterback; he at least has a good track record of avoiding turnovers. They'll surely be scouring the waiver wire the next week or two to find a better backup than Austin Davis. Meanwhile, this is probably the end for Bradford in St. Louis, as he has a cap number around $16 million for next year. This was really the year he had to prove himself, and now he won't get the chance.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 24 Aug 2014

45 comments, Last at
08 Sep 2014, 10:19pm by
v3456d

Comments

Is this it for him, period? What history is there for double ACL tear recoveries? Does the reconstructive surgery get more complicated at that point? Gosh, I'd tell him to focus on just being able to walk and jog and live a decent life at this point, I mean, he's already made millions in the NFL.

And on the other side of things, does anyone legitimately think the Rams try to trade for another quarterback in case Hill struggles or gets injured? Sanchez, Mallett? Someone like that?

He's done because he has a huge cap number and little proven ability to stay healthy or produce at the NFL level.

As far as his millions, it always seems to us like he should be set, but remember that he pays an agent and probably a manager, and he gets taxed at the highest rate because he is considered not an employee, but an independent contractor.

True, but he got a $24,000,000 signing bonus on his first deal. Even after taxes, fees, payments to agents, lawyers, money-managers, etc. he should have been able to save a large chunk of that - say, $10M (as a totally random guess)? Plus what he's made since then, and unless he's been poor with his money, I think he could be fine for a long time...

Tampa will trump your offer for a simple straight-up trade of Mike Glennon for Robert Quinn. Glennon at least has some upside and has a very cheap contract. So, my trade offer, being at least slightly less insane than yours, wins, and we get Quinn.

Is it just me, or does the backup situation across the NFL look more barren than it used to? Guess it might have something to do with how much more the league is leaning on the passing game, but I recall veteran guys like Neil O'Donnell, Tony Banks, Jeff Blake, Rob Johnson, Steve Beurelein, etc. hanging around--a bunch of marginal starters who could get you by in a pinch for extended time. Now, I look at depth charts with Orlovsky, Gradkowski, Rex Grossman (somehow still employed), Derek Anderson, and I don't get it. Is there really so little talent out there? Is it just not developing?

Defenses have evolved since the days of Neil O'Donnell and Jeff Blake, and their limitations might be more exploited by modern defensive schemes. It's possible they'd outplay Rex Grossman against today's defenses, but not certain by any means.

Henry Burress, Craig Krenzel, and Chad Hutchinson object to being forgotten. Right now, there's Mike Vick, Matt Moore, Kyle Orton, Matt Hasselback, Chad Henne, Sanchez, and Tarvaris Jackson, and most of those guys have led a team to the playoffs.

Salary cap plays a big part in this. A backup of starting quality might just cost too much, or you have more money tied up in another position, like cornerback or left tackle. Depth at almost all positions in the NFL is pretty thin; the days of keeping pretty good players around in case your All-Pro starter goes down are long past.

Well back in the 80s before free agency, backups could be forced with the same team for years. That gave them a chance to develop and learn a system (see Hosstetler, Jeff and Young, Steve, etc). Expansion from 28-32 over a decade period also stretched the backup quarterback pool. So i agree, there's no way it is as deep as the 80's 90's era. But I do think it is better now than it was 10 years ago. Most teams have either a veteran backup who has significant starting experience or a young guy that might be better than the starting veteran.

Given the level of competition in the NFCW and the fact that the Rams are really targeting next year or the year after anyway, I would be very surprised if they mortgaged draft picks or young talent to rent the 33rd- or 40th- or 48th-best QB in the NFL for a year.

I recall some years back (circa 2011) when the writers of Patriots Football weekly said that they felt that if they had a choice, Tom Brady would be their first pick at quarterback in the whole league, excepting perhaps Sam Bradford, who they thought had at least as much upside with a full illustrious career ahead of him.

I dunno, he may have been talented, but he was considered an injury concern at the time. Saying "if he stays healthy, he could be better than..." was one thing. But every year people say "if he can fix his throwing motion" or "if he can learn pocket presence" about rookies and those are always huge ifs. That Bradford's undoing was his knee and not his shoulder doesn't make that much difference in the long run.

I said at the time that the Rams were crazy to not draft Suh. There was almost zero chance that Suh, absent career threatening injury, would not be a multiple Pro Bowler, and defensive linemen are in many ways the next most important spots on the roster after qb. I never came close to having the sure-thing vibe about Bradford in the manner I did for, say, Andrew Luck.

but then if you're wrong, you "end up" with Jake Long or Chris Long instead of Matt Ryan. I think both the Rams and Dolphins regret that decision. I think you should defer to taking the qb unless its a huge reach. Will knows of which i speak.

Obviously Matt Ryan has been better than Bradford to this point, and a quarterback has greater impact on a team's record than a single defensive end, but I'd rather have an A+ defensive line than a B+ quarterback, and if your goal is winning a championship, I think the line gets you closer

Well, Bradford is done (at least with the Rams), so it's no longer Ryan vs. Bradford. It's Ryan vs. Shaun Hill/whoever they can acquire. Then, next year, it'll be Ryan vs. whoever they draft. Given the quality of the other defenses in that division, I don't think it's possible to win with a QB as mediocre as Hill, and there's no guarantee that whoever they draft will work out either. Ryan may not be on the "elite" level, but he's definitely good enough to win with.

As for their defensive line, they basically have an embarrassment of riches there. In fact, they're so deep there that even without Long, they would still have one of the best units in the league. So, I would rather have an A- defensive line and a B+ quarterback than an A+ defensive line and a C- quarterback.

Yeah, given a choice between Matt Ryan (an at least above-average starter) or Shaun Hill (or, hey, take Kellen Clemens from prior years) plus Chris Long, how do you not opt for the better QB based on purely the fact the NFL is all about passing these days? I can compensate for substandard DE play in a variety of ways; stunts, blitzes, good coverage schemes. I can't compensate for bad QB play in any way.

Exactly. Long by himself doesn't make you a good defense. Hell long and Quinn by themselves don't make you a great defense. Atlanta last year with injured receivers and an execrable o line still finished 11th in pass dvoa. It might be a totally legitimate argument that had atlanta had a mediocre qb in place, they would have gone 1-15.

I just don't see any reasoning for Chris Long over Ryan. JJ watt is the best defensive player hands down and his team went 2-14. I hate how the media overstates qbs, but ryan is just far more valuable than any defensive end.

With potentially two HoF receivers and the best tight end ever, the Falcons' offense was just 'pretty good' over the past few years. There's an opportunity cost to settling for Matt Ryan (and the Falcons weren't much better than 2-14 last year)

I can understand that argument, but it's just so hard to win in the NFL without QBing of at least a certain level, and it's very hard to get QBs of the caliber outside the draft. You're basically forced into drafting a QB unless you think he stinks.

this was meant to be in response to this comment:
Salary cap plays a big part in this. A backup of starting quality might just cost too much, or you have more money tied up in another position, like cornerback or left tackle. Depth at almost all positions in the NFL is pretty thin;

the days of keeping pretty good players around in case your All-Pro starter goes down are long past.